Fort Ord reuse: Another problem with plans

The Fort Ord Reuse Authority shifted course last week on a controversial consistency determination — potentially complicating future projects on the former base.

Now the determination, which was supposed to make sure the county's general plan and FORA's plan work together, is in legal limbo after a tie vote.

All jurisdictions on the former Army base are required by state law to have their plans for land and development match up with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

The FORA board voted in February that the plans matched and the Monterey County supervisors had done the same in August.

In a surprising move on Friday for what was supposed to be the final vote on the matter, two board members flipped their votes and another abstained.

As of late Wednesday, no one could say for sure exactly what that meant.

FORA officials said last week the whole thing had to go back to the Monterey County supervisors. Not so fast, said Carl Holm, deputy director of the county Resource Management Agency.

He said Wednesday that he asked county counsel to review if the first vote stands because the second was a tie, as well as other options.

"We are reviewing all legal ramifications of the vote," he said.

Several environmental groups argued Monterey County's rules for development were much weaker than the FORA Reuse Plan, particularly when it came to water.

Supervisor Dave Potter said the differences were minor and nothing would make it easier for future projects to get approved if the plans were found consistent.

Yet others, such as county Supervisor Lou Calcagno and Victoria Beach, actually changed their minds since the first vote.

Calcagno argued the county's plan presumes areas of Fort Ord have a long-term water supply unlike the FORA plan, which has strict allocations.

"The general public is saddled with the burden of proving there is no long-term supply of water," he said.

He said if the plans were found consistent, it may be subject to legal challenges down the road.

Seaside Mayor Ralph Rubio said the authority's reuse plan has precedent over all other plans, so it shouldn't be an issue.

"It's enough comfort for me to say we can move forward on this project," he said.

The confusion over the two plans and dozens of legal arguments was too much for one board member.

Casey Lucius of Pacific Grove, at her first meeting as a board member, said she read more than 800 pages of documents to prepare for the one item but could not in good conscience vote.

"I have to be honest and say I was trying to be very thorough and read everything but it doesn't mean I understand," she said.

With Lucius' abstention, it left the vote tied 6-6.

Also at the meeting, FORA chair Jerry Edelen admitted he made a mistake closing last month's meeting to public comment after a complaint from Keep Fort Ord Wild attorney Molly Erickson.

To close public comment he said "going once, going twice. Thank you very much, back to the board."

By not declaring it closed, Erickson argued draft meeting minutes stating the meeting had been closed to the public were false and a violation of the law. She said FORA needed to investigate the matter and turn over its findings to the state attorney general.

"I think most people in the audience — I think 99.9 percent of the people — realize ... that was the close of the public hearing," Edelen said.

He then declared the public hearing from February closed.

"We can now go in the Guinness Book of World Records for having the longest public hearing," he said.